Assange has asylum, but his options are still limited

There are only so many ways to escape the authorities surrounding the embassy.

Ecuador has granted Julian Assange asylum, kicking off an epic diplomatic standoff. While he sits inside the Ecuadorian embassy, British police have to stand by outside and wait. If they go inside (or "storm" it, as one official claimed the police threatened to do), they'd be violating one of the most fundamental diplomatic rules between nations, and would endanger British embassies around the world by setting a needless precedent.

The Foreign Office has tweeted a statement making it clear that they still intend to extradite Assange. It said, "We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution. Under our law, with Mr Assange having exhausted all options of appeal UK authorities are under binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. We shall carry out that obligation. The Ecuadorian Government's decision this afternoon does not change that." So, where does that leave Assange?

He always knew that he would be arrested if he left the embassy—he's violated his bail conditions, after all. Now, though, he knows that if he can get to Ecuador he won't have to answer the rape allegations in Sweden. That means he has to find a way out of the United Kingdom, but there's absolutely no reason to expect the British authorities to allow that to happen.

It's important to make it clear here that what he's been accused of is definitely rape by British law, too—this isn't something that only the Swedes prosecute, no matter what Assange may think. As others have noted (like Anna North at Jezebel), it's deeply depressing that so many people have automatically assumed that the women allegedly raped in this case must have some secret, ulterior motive.

That's why it's also depressing to see Ecuador grant Assange asylum. The whole point of asylum is to give people a way of escaping political persecution in countries where they aren't politically free. Granting Assange asylum makes the allegations of rape a de facto political crime, even if it's meant to be a way of saving Assange from further extradition to the US.

The Ecuadorian government claims that it tried to negotiate an agreement with the Swedish authorities to get a promise that Assange could not be then further extradited to the US. It is clear that the American government is after Assange—and a leaked Stratfor email appears to confirm that a sealed indictment has been issued by the US Justice Department—and Ecuador made the offer for the Swedish authorities to question Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Advocates for Assange argue that he faces a greater chance of being taken to the US once in Sweden, but then analysis from actual lawyers tends to be pretty clear that that's a fair bit harder to pull off than from the UK. And as Human Rights Watch points out, Ecuador isn't exactly great when it comes to press freedoms and human rights.

But here we are, and Assange now has a safe haven where he can both avoid extradition to the US and the allegations of rape. So, what happens now?

Storming the embassy

This was talked about by the Ecuadorian authorities, who claimed they received a letter from the British consulate in Quito threatening the forcible extraction of Assange. The truth is more mundane—the British government pointed out that it has the right to take away the special diplomatic immunity of the embassy, and thus has no problem using a warrant for Assange's arrest to get in.

This isn't too realistic, though. For one thing, it would destroy relations between the two countries, and it's doubtful the UK cares that much about Assange to risk that. The Ecuadorian government has the right to challenge the decision in court, too, so it could be a long, drawn-out process (as David Allen Green talks about over at the New Statesman).

One solution to avoid litigation would be to simply break off diplomatic relations with Ecuador altogether, expel the Ecuadorian ambassador, and then arrest Assange. But why on earth would the UK want to be so drastic as to do that? Any chance of the UK authorities getting into the embassy to nab Assange is effectively nil.

OK, so Assange flees outside

He'd be arrested as soon as he stepped outside the front door, or any door for that matter. Or window. The police have the place pretty thoroughly surrounded.

Diplomatic vehicles have the same status as diplomatic buildings, so if Assange could make a break for a car and get in, he'd be as safe as if he were in the embassy still. Except then he'd be stuck in a car, surrounded by police, and presumably forced to come out eventually to get food or go to the restroom. A car isn't practical. However...

A helicopter?

Assange could theoretically climb into some kind of helicopter (or James Bond-style gyrocopter) and fly away. The problem with this approach is that the helicopter would have to be a diplomatic vehicle as well to avoid getting searched as soon as it landed—and even if it was granted diplomatic status, it's hard to imagine it having enough fuel to fly far enough away that he could leave the UK. A helicopter isn't going to make it across the Atlantic, and the best it can do is land in another EU country who would also be legally obliged to extradite Assange to Sweden.

It's not realistic to assume he could just keep flying upward to eventually "leave" British airspace, either. There isn't any kind of agreed international point where airspace and (neutral) outer space begins. The closest is the Kármán line, defined as 100km above sea level. By comparison, the highest skydive ever (by Joseph Kittinger) was from a measly 31km high, and he needed a pressurised suit for that. No, escaping by air alone is unfeasible...

Unless he landed on the water

International waters begin 24 nautical miles (44km) off shore. Ecuador could sail a ship there, wait for Assange to fly overhead in a helicopter (or drift over in a balloon), and pick him up and take him "home." As soon as he was on the high seas he'd be under the jurisdiction of the nation the boat is registered to, and since that's Ecuador, he'd technically be high and dry even while in the middle of the ocean. Ecuador doesn't have an aircraft carrier, though, or even much of a navy outside its own domestic waters, so it might have to rent someone's ship.

The problem with this is that it assumes the British government would give the Ecuadorian government permission to fly a diplomatic helicopter over London knowing that it would be used to aid the escape of a fugitive. That's the same legal reasoning that would allow the UK government to withdraw diplomatic status for the embassy in London.

Negotiating a deal

It's tempting to conjure absurd escape attempts by Assange. But the truth is Julian Assange is probably very, very scared of what might happen to him if he were to be extradited to the US. He knows what's happening to Bradley Manning right now. But he has also been accused of rape, and there are two women in Sweden who deserve justice and the full respect of both the law and wider society for being brave enough for speaking out.

The only realistic way out for Assange is for the British and Ecuadorian governments to negotiate a deal. In the long run, Assange will probably have to face the rape allegations in some way, but by granting Assange asylum the Ecuadorian government has signaled that it really does want to protect Assange from any further extradition to the US. The most sensible outcome would appear to be some kind of negotiated agreement where the Swedes promise not to send Assange to the US—and hope that the Wikileaks founder finds it acceptable to come out of the embassy he's lived in for the past 8 weeks.

This article was originally published on Wired.co.uk. Read the original story here.

First, I absolutely love the level of speculation in this article about his various escape options. That is awesome.

Second, even though it's been obvious for a long time that this guy was a total a**, it was a lot easier to have sympathy for him when he was running from the US government for wikileaks than it is now that he's hiding from rape charges.

I think the continued focus on the rape allegations is a big mistake. Everything about them is unconvincing, and the fact that Sweden won't make a deal that agrees to not extradite him to the US makes it pretty clear what's going on.

First, I absolutely love the level of speculation in this article about his various escape options. That is awesome.

Second, even though it's been obvious for a long time that this guy was a total a**, it was a lot easier to have sympathy for him when he was running from the US government for wikileaks than it is now that he's hiding from rape charges.

Come on the rape charges are what is always used when they want to shock the public into not defending someone....

First, I absolutely love the level of speculation in this article about his various escape options. That is awesome.

Second, even though it's been obvious for a long time that this guy was a total a**, it was a lot easier to have sympathy for him when he was running from the US government for wikileaks than it is now that he's hiding from rape charges.

What he's charged with would not be described as rape in any other civilized country.

[blockquote]Ecuador doesn't have an aircraft carrier, though, or even much of a navy outside its own domestic waters, so it might have to rent someone's ship.[/blockquote]Neither does the UK anymore. We have to borrow Frances' Aircraft carrier if we need one.

Here's an option apparently not considered by the (male) author of the article, Assange could grow a backbone and answer the questions over the molestation/rape of those two women in a country that guarantees a fair trial.

Or option 2, grow a pair of balls and go and join Bradley Manning. That way he can show us that he's prepared to pay the price for standing up to big government. Isn't that what idealists are all about?

So if the only thing Sweden atm wants is to question Assange, why exactly did they decline the offer to do so in the Ecuadorian embassy? Would save everyone quite a lot of headaches and complications, at least for the time being.

I hate the idea of rape apologetics, but in this case the timing is unfortunate, to say the least.

It's hard to shake the impression that the only reason the case was re-opened was to nail Assange with something so he could be extradited.

That said, the women do deserve a trial. The fact that Sweden is essentially stating outright that the instant they have Assange they'll ship him off to the US and is refusing to even think about not doing so means that I place the lack of trial mostly on them, not Assange. If they weren't determined to make this political then it might've been resolved by now.

I think the continued focus on the rape allegations is a big mistake. Everything about them is unconvincing, and the fact that Sweden won't make a deal that agrees to not extradite him to the US makes it pretty clear what's going on.

Swedish law doesn't work like Anglo-American law (civil v. common) and it would be illegal for their political authorities to make that kind of deal prior to the US actually making a request to extradite him before Swedish courts.

Alternatively, they're all part of the conspiracy that didn't bother to simply have the British courts deny him bail.

(also re: questioning, that's another spot where the differences between common and civil law matter and aren't fully appreciated by most people commenting. The better analogue would be an indictment/grand jury hearing - the charges are pending and so Sweden is looking to arrest him.)

I think the continued focus on the rape allegations is a big mistake. Everything about them is unconvincing, and the fact that Sweden won't make a deal that agrees to not extradite him to the US makes it pretty clear what's going on.

Yeah, even though his defence team admit that he had unconsensual sex with two women, he can't be a rapist because 4chan says so!

Just because he's been through rigorous judicial appeals, lasting nearly four years, in two countries with strong rules of law, and respect for human rights, he must have been set up because a Man on the Internet says!

Just because two women have accused him of rape, they must have ulterior motives because women always lie about rape because all women are bitches!

Jesus.

When we get him to Sweden, he's gonna be spending a long time in prison to think about how unconvincing a rapist he is.

Sweden have ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO MAKE ANY "DEAL" with a man carrying a European Arrest Warrant for two accounts of serious sexual assault that carry a combined maximum sentence of 24 years in prison.

Add to that bail-jumping in the UK (5 years) and Espionage in the US (death, though they'd have to offer life without parole to satisfy the ECHR), we can afford to let him sweat on his camp bed in a loft for a few years.

No, it really isn't. Rape charges do not set of international diplomatic shitstorms of this magnitude. Sadly even rapists by the most brutal definition of the word are not extradited with this intensity. Former African warlords seek reside all over the EU for doing worse things. Instead, he rightfully exposed terrible secrets and embarrassed governments thinking they could do terrible secret things entirely in secret. If he was extradited to Sweden he'll be right out of Sweden on a direct plane to the US, where officials embarrassed by him exposing their embarrassing secrets have been calling for his head.

So: we have an Australian in the UK exposing the secrets of the US and is in fear of his freedom or potentially life for talking about a country he has no allegiance or ties to. That is, completely by definition (hostility and ill-treatment esp by religious or political beliefs), political persecution, and he is rightfully granted asylum from political persecution.

Have to admit I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw this was a Wired article and not an Ars one, the bias against Julian was pretty heavy for something on Ars. Regardless of the truth (and the backstory for this entire thing only makes one conclude that the truth of the matter is we don't know until Julian is convicted/acquitted in Sweden, and the article here says it's assumed the women have an ulterior motive, when the internet has generally convened on it's the overzealous prosecutor that has an ulterior motive), to say it's depressing for someone to get asylum, and using that to publicly convict Julian, is very, very... odd to see here.

I hate the idea of rape apologetics, but in this case the timing is unfortunate, to say the least.

It's hard to shake the impression that the only reason the case was re-opened was to nail Assange with something so he could be extradited.

That said, the women do deserve a trial. The fact that Sweden is essentially stating outright that the instant they have Assange they'll ship him off to the US and is refusing to even think about not doing so means that I place the lack of trial mostly on them, not Assange. If they weren't determined to make this political then it might've been resolved by now.

I don't know about that. I'm not a woman, but if I was raped, and I had the choice of having him tried and sentenced for that, or handed over to an angry nation over some bean-spilling... that's a tough choice. Basically I'd choose who'd ever string him up farther and make it hurt worse.

Saying that, I hope that best situation plays out in general. I'm not knowledgable about this situation to take sides.

Assange does need to face the allegations in Sweden, regardless of how 'convenient' they may be.

However, as a British citizen it saddens me to see what our government are doing with the extradition of Assange and British nationals. The simple truth is, that if Assange went to Sweden he may well be extradited to the United States - where the threat of extrajudicial execution/assassination has been made by more than one public figure.

Quite simply, Mr. Assange's safety cannot be guaranteed if he were sent to Sweden. Which is a shame because the Swedish Government is one that I look up to greatly as a model for Britain and large parts of Europe to aspire to.

Of course he should face the rape allegations. It's a very serious allegation and it needs to be heard in a court of law. However, there are too many parties interested in Mr. Assange to guarantee his safety.

As a matter of principle, were it possible, I would quite literally drive the man out of the country myself. I believe his personal safety is at great risk and the UK government have been utterly spineless and without moral credibility in this case.

No, it really isn't. Rape charges do not set of international diplomatic shitstorms of this magnitude.

It's nice that Ecuador are concerned for Assange's human rights. Maybe they'll start offering them to their own citizens?

Really, Ecuador thought they were having fun, tweaked the noses of the Americans. What they've actually done is start of a slow motion humiliation.

If I were the FCO, I'd just say "fine, we're just gonna leave Assange there until there's a change of government. There might be one along in half a decade or so. Enjoy your five year stay on a campbed in a loft! Love, the Foreign Office"

[blockquote]Ecuador doesn't have an aircraft carrier, though, or even much of a navy outside its own domestic waters, so it might have to rent someone's ship.[/blockquote]Neither does the UK anymore. We have to borrow Frances' Aircraft carrier if we need one.

It's France, just threaten them into surrendering it. Also, I would hesitate to pin my life on an escape plan that could be thwarted by someone with a bow and a few arrows.

I think the continued focus on the rape allegations is a big mistake. Everything about them is unconvincing, and the fact that Sweden won't make a deal that agrees to not extradite him to the US makes it pretty clear what's going on.

Rape implies that he forced two women to have sex against their will. All were willing partners.

Both had sex on the condition of him using protection in the form of a condom. One of them he had sex with a second time (unprotected) after she was asleep. The other claims he intentionally damaged the condom with his fingernails and continued to have sex with her even after the condom broke (and he was apparently aware of it). If these claims are both true then he did not in fact have consent, especially in the first case where the woman wasn't actually concious, and in the second because he intentionally went against the conditions of her consent.

"it's deeply depressing that so many people have automatically assumed that the women allegedly raped in this case must have some secret, ulterior motive."

===

Agreed. The most depressing part of it is that a significant portion of the population of all our countries no longer trusts our Governments to act with integrity or according to the rule of law.

We used to look down on parts of the world where people could be "disappeared" and wind up in secret prisons where they were tortured by paramilitary groups, now we do that. We used to look down on countries who used death squads to hunt down and kill those even violently opposed to their Government, now we do it (drone strikes).

The concept of bringing the courts into disrepute also extends to bringing the Government into disrepute. Democracy can only exist in an environment where the Government is seen as legitimate and Just in the eyes of most of the people. Democracy is not based on military strength, it is based on the belief that people have in the institutions of democracy.

Looking at just the Dotcom/Mega case alone shows that the US DoJ views the rule of law as an obstacle course to be circumvented. It is hard to see how anyone can put their trust into such a system.

It is a tragedy for women who ARE raped that this case is not being prosecuted with integrity, regardless of the outcome and regardless of whether he is guilty. It is much more of a tragedy that our democracies are in such a state that makes it so that every reasonable person must have at least some doubt as to whether the rape allegation is just a scheme to "render" Assange. If we continue in this direction democracy will not exist for our grandchildren.

I couldn't care less about Assange. I think he is a narcissistic creep. I am deeply worried about the state of our democracies though. When democracy is gone, rape in all its forms will become commonplace.

Rape implies that he forced two women to have sex against their will. All were willing partners.

Both had sex on the condition of him using protection in the form of a condom. One of them he had sex with a second time (unprotected) after she was asleep. The other claims he intentionally damaged the condom with his fingernails and continued to have sex with her even after the condom broke (and he was apparently aware of it). If these claims are both true then he did not in fact have consent, especially in the first case where the woman wasn't actually concious, and in the second because he intentionally went against the conditions of her consent.

One was asleep. That's rape in the US, UK and Sweden.

The other one he carried on fucking her without a condom despite her request to use one (rape in the US, UK and Sweden) and then CARRIED ON when the woman asked him to stop (rape in the US, UK and Sweden).

Sometimes when it quacks like a rapist, and rapes like a rapist, maybe it's just a fucking rapist?

This would be an extremely difficult charge for the US to bring against him, he wasn't resident in the US at the time, didn't take any actions in the US and didn't break into any systems to get the information. He was in receipt of confidential information, true, but so were the Times, the Guardian and god knows how many other newspapers

it's deeply depressing that so many people have automatically assumed that the women allegedly raped in this case must have some secret, ulterior motive.

Sure, because it's not at all suspicious that these women, who initially dropped charges against Assange, all of a sudden wanted to press charges again after the whole Wikileaks fiasco. Maybe Assange did rape these women, but it's pretty damn obvious that, at the very least, they were pressured to bring up charges again by an outside influence with ulterior motives.

Quote:

But he has also been accused of rape, and there are two women in Sweden who deserve justice and the full respect of both the law and wider society for being brave enough for speaking out.

Oh please. Everyone and their mother knows that any "justice" involved with these rape charges is simply a pretext for extraditing Assange to the US. If all Sweden wanted was justice for these rape victims, then they could have made a guarantee that Assange would not be extradited to another country. According to the article, Sweden refused to do this. And while going to jail, even for rape, sucks in general, don't forget that Sweden has one of the cushiest jail systems around. It wouldn't be the end of the world for Assange if he had to do jail time in Sweden, but it would most likely be the end of his life if he was extradited to the US.

I realize that the author was trying to sound impartial here, but it's obvious that the US has been throwing its political weight around in the UK, Sweden, and elsewhere to try to get Assange extradited. Is it really that difficult to admit the very real possibility of backroom political deal-making?

I think the continued focus on the rape allegations is a big mistake. Everything about them is unconvincing, and the fact that Sweden won't make a deal that agrees to not extradite him to the US makes it pretty clear what's going on.

The Swedish justice system is one of the fairest in the world. If the allegations are unconvincing he has nothing to fear from a trial. Extradition is easier from th UK than from Sweden. The guy is merely using wikileaks as an excuse to evade rape charges. This makes him a douche.

by granting Assange asylum the Ecuadorian government has signaled that it really does want to protect Assange from any further extradition to the US. The most sensible outcome would appear to be some kind of negotiated agreement where the Swedes promise not to send Assange to the US

I would be perfectly happy with such an outcome.

The "rape" at hand:

Quote:

it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

... is minor to say the least. Yes, he harmed her "sexual integrity", but he didn't exactly ruin her whole life (assuming the facts are even true! innocent until proven guilty and all that). She has, on the other hand, possibly ruined his life by scaring the shit out of him with all this fear of being sent to the United States, a country that has a history of illegally torturing other Australian citizens who were never actually found guilty, all in the name of terrorism.

Frankly, I don't care about her "sexual integrity" when compared with his wikileaks fear. A promise not to be extradited to the USA — even if found guilty of rape — would make me happy.

I'm also disgusted at my own government, who has barely even mentioned a case. They should have sent a whole team of suits over to fight for Assange and keep him out of the US.

This would be an extremely difficult charge for the US to bring against him, he wasn't resident in the US at the time, didn't take any actions in the US and didn't break into any systems to get the information. He was in receipt of confidential information, true, but so were the Times, the Guardian and god knows how many other newspapers

I am no expert on US espionage and treason law, so I couldn't comment.

But on the rape and bail offences alone, he's already clocked up nearly thirty years of possible prison time in Sweden and the UK.

Rape implies that he forced two women to have sex against their will. All were willing partners.

Both had sex on the condition of him using protection in the form of a condom. One of them he had sex with a second time (unprotected) after she was asleep. The other claims he intentionally damaged the condom with his fingernails and continued to have sex with her even after the condom broke (and he was apparently aware of it). If these claims are both true then he did not in fact have consent, especially in the first case where the woman wasn't actually concious, and in the second because he intentionally went against the conditions of her consent.

How do you sleep through someone fornicating with you? Either he's "just that good" or "just that bad".

by granting Assange asylum the Ecuadorian government has signaled that it really does want to protect Assange from any further extradition to the US. The most sensible outcome would appear to be some kind of negotiated agreement where the Swedes promise not to send Assange to the US

I would be perfectly happy with such an outcome.

The "rape" at hand:

Quote:

it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

I think the continued focus on the rape allegations is a big mistake. Everything about them is unconvincing, and the fact that Sweden won't make a deal that agrees to not extradite him to the US makes it pretty clear what's going on.

Agreed. These rape allegations are crap. In fact it seems that rape allegations for the sake of political gain are in vogue these days (Dominique Strauss ring any bells?). It's an easy set up: beautiful girl acts seductive, gets the attention, the two make out, have sex. The next day she walks into the police department and accuses the guy of rape and provides the required evidence. It's a great dirty trick you can use against any guy you'd like taken out. All this does is make it hard for real rape victims to come forward.